Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Movements Bicker Over Logo
colinneagle writes in with a story about open source organizations fighting over logos. "A gear logo proposed to represent and easily identify open-source hardware has caught the eyes of the The Open Source Initiative, which believes the logo infringes its trademark. The gear logo is backed by the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA), which was formally established earlier this year to promote hardware innovation and unite the fragmented community of hackers and do-it-yourselfers. The gear mark is now being increasingly used on boards and circuits to indicate that the hardware is open-source and designs can be openly shared and modified. OSI has now informed OSHWA, which is acting on behalf of the open-source hardware community, that the logo infringes on its trademark. The issue at stake is a keyhole at the bottom of the open-source hardware logo, which resembles a keyhole at the bottom of the OSI logo. The gear logo was created as part of the contest hosted by the group that founded OSHWA, and the mark was released by its designer under a Creative Commons license, opening it up for the community to use on hardware."
For those too young to remember... 'open sores' is a reference to a User Friendly comic. I miss that comic.
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Slashdot uses the OSI logo as seen on this very story, so I wonder what the rules are on that.
The OSI web site FAQ says:
What about logo usage not linking to OSI?
Well, I read about Nominative Use and ... don't understand.
Seems like dilution to me, but IANAL, etc.
Also, it says the symbol can be used for linking to the OSI website.
Finally, it seems that the logo is to be accompanied by the text, "We recommend using the Futura Md BT Medium fonts as complementary fonts to the OSI Logo."
Having rambled on through all that, I have to assume Slashdot is in compliance and I'm too tired to make sense of it all.
I can't be the only one who thinks something's seriously wrong here?
Open source groups bickering over something insignificant? Really? Better fork it!
In this case I think it is more than egos.
I casually follow the open source/maker scenes and try and keep up to date with the general state of things. And without any other information I would have assumed these two logos represented either formally associated groups or even different projects branches of the same group.
Want to know why Free and Open Source software gets such a bad rap? It's shit like this!
Next time you wonder why the Year of the Linux Desktop is going to be a long ways off, if ever, remember all of these petty disputes. What about all the bickering whether we should call it Linux or GNU/Linux/X11/Gnome/Mahjong? So much time is wasted over trivial things like this. Both sides should be happy they are in the Open Source movement and focus only on that.
I think they have a point. Those two logos really look quite similar. Upon first look, I`d suspect, that I am dealing with different chapters of the same legal entity. And this is not the case. They should at least change either color, font, size or shape of the logo, to better distinguish themselves. Just my oppinion.
Does OSHWA have a philosophy very different from OSI, the way FSF does? If not, egos aside, why not come together (like X-Open & OSF once did to form OpenGroup) and include hardware in Open Source coverage? At the most basic level, hardware is nowadays increasingly represented in HDL code, which makes it the hardware equivalent of software source code. So similar FOSS licenses can cover them. Unlike software, it'd be easier to make money off open hardware, since one can't just take a Verilog model of something out there and toss it around: the least that would have to happen is that an FPGA would have to be programmed, and people can't just lend them around like CDs. So yeah, OSI should cover both, taking into it OSHWA
While the open-source movement itself has been under constant attack from patent trolls, copyright trolls, trolls of all sizes and from all sides, now we have this ....
PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK !!!
STOP BEING SO MOTHER-FUCKING CHILDISH !!!
I sincerely hope that there are still some adults left in the OSI and it's time for the adults to lead the movement
WE ARE TIRED OF ALL THE COPYRIGHT / LOGO / PATENT DISPUTES !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Not sure -- IANAL, after all -- but don't they risk some other, more nefarious, party hijacking their trademark if they don't defend it?
Yup.
Shitty situation, but I can actually see OSIs point. If I saw the OSHWA logo without prior background I probably would assume it was some how tied to OSI due to the similarity, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trademark.
Also as I understand it, when it comes to trademarks if you don't make efforts to protect it, you lose it.
Hopefully they come to some kind of amicable agreement. I think both sides are reasonable enough that they can come up with some way to fix this without us reading about the ongoing court battle for the next 2 years.
Do they really not see the irony here? Really??
It would make sense for organizations with such similar goals to have similar symbols.
Then again, I can understand being concerned about being associated with another organization over which you have no control.
So, a few things are evident.
OSI have a point, the logos are so similar as to imply a connection / sponsorship. (Look at TFA, the similarities are really striking.)
OSHWA almost certainly must have been intending the similarity.
OSHWA didn't seek out approval in advance.
Thus, to keep their trademark, OSI are compelled to protect it. But this makes one wonder, what about OSHWA does OSI not like? Otherwise, one would think they would extend a license to the trademark. Alternatively I suppose that OSHWA might not want to abide by any restrictions set by OSI on use of the mark, but then I'm curious what restrictions were proposed.
There has to have been some conversation already, right?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It has been doing reruns for a quite a while now. But I still read 'em. :D
I happened to be grabbing a fresh copy of Jetty and noticed that Codehaus's logo has the same keyhole.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
A hypocrite, really? I can thing of many derogatory terms that could be leveled against RMS, several of them arguably justified, but hypocrite isn't one that jumps out at me. From all that I've heard the man is fairly unflinching in his position, even if his personal eccentricities do leave him open to ridicule in many circles. Would you care to defend your claim?
Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The OSHWA only needs to change that logo. Trademarks are supposed to uniquely identify something. If you do not defend your trademark proactively you may find out you lost the right to use it. Their rant against using OSI licenses, if real, is nonsense of the worst kind. OSI stores a bunch of licenses someone else conceived which they perceive as having the right kind of attributes according to their charter. You are not hurting OSI in any way by not using the licenses.
Really, is that why the OSI logo looks like a pallet-swapped version of this logo from before OSI existed?
Maybe OSHW should ask that logo's owner for terms, they might be more favorable.
Sadly, no. There hasn't been a new strip in years. For example, today's strip is a rerun from 2001.
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Why can't they be more like Larry Ewing, author of the most famous open source logo of them all, that fat dodo that looks like Homer Simpson after eating a school of tuna? I can understand Redhat and Canonical defending their logos to prevent third parties selling Trojaned or crapwared copies, but aren't the open source and the open hard movements distributing ideas, and the more viral the logos go, the popular their ideas become?
according to archive.org, that logo was placed on the site in 2002.
opensource.org was created in 1998
If their logo is registered with the USPTO, predates OSI's trademark submission, and they still pay for the trademark to be active they can sue OSI.
I cannot find flashenabled's trademark at the USPTO website. I can find OSI's though.
I donate this idea to the open source hardware community.
Glad to fixt that up for you. Get back to work.
Why is Snark Required?
OSI is willing to license the trademark, OSHWA's Gibb wrote in the blog entry. However, accepting such a license would establish OSI as the owner of the gear logo, which could put members at risk of litigation.
"It would make OSI responsible for deciding where and when the logo can be used, effectively giving OSI control of defining what can and cannot be labeled as open source hardware. It could also place OSHWA in the uncomfortable position of needing to enforce OSI trademarks," Gibb wrote.
In other words, OSHWA doesn't want to be beholden to another organization. If OSHWA and OSI were to disagree on whether a particular piece of hardware is "open source" or not, OSI would have the final say.
When it's etched on a PCB, it's either going to be two shades of green (if part of the traces) or white if it's silkscreened on along with the part numbers.
User Friendly is now considered old - so much so that people here might be "too young to remember"? WTF? Are there any posters here born in 2009 or later?
Presumably one of those groups is a Microsoft shill disguised as an Open Source company. Which on is it?
Sounds more like an off.
I'm 28 and I'd never heard of it.
which is totally what she said
If I saw the OSHWA logo without prior background I probably would assume it was some how tied to OSI due to the similarity, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trademark.
I saw it and went, "These aren't the same company showing the connection of different brands?"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Those logos are clearly different, but the logos can go together!!!
Just put the green logo in the blue logo, so you have open hardware running open software.
I'm OSI's current president. Here are the facts that are missing from the OP:
Oh? When was this and what exactly did he do? Your accusation is pretty vague, and Google is offering me no enlightenment.
As for giving away other's "intellectual property" to the world I don't see how that would be consistent with his stated philosophy. There's a pretty big difference between saying all software should be released Free by it's creators, and the petty "information want's to be free" phlegm coughed up by the warez crowd. What possible use would something like illegally released source code be to any law-abiding citizen?
Finally, well yeah, *of course* he's a politician, has he ever denied it? He rekindled and gave focus to a major social movement within the programmer population, is responsible for the free software license against which all others are measured, and is generally an opinionated advocate of his own philosophy. Such people do tend to be activists.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
BTW: I also wrote the orig post that this is a reply to.
I'd like to respond to 2 lines from the original article:
"""OSI, which is more grounded in software, tends to take a conservative approach to trademarks and legal discussions, which makes communication difficult, Seidle said. But OSHWA does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone, Seidle said"
Our (OSI's) approach to trademarks is not a "conservative" one, but one required by simple trademark law. One might almost say, with equal validity, that OSI and the FSF approach to copyrights and licensing is a "conservative" one, as in being an approach that allows licensing to actually *mean* something. As an extreme example, allowing the use of a trademark "whilly-nilly", with no conditions or restraints, and no unacceptable uses, is certainly not conservative, but it also results in a worthless and, more important, meaningless trademark. If the trademark can be used on anything, then what does it actually mean? How does it relate any "message" to the end-user?
And secondly, OSI does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone else... Seidle certainly is not implying that OSI does, but some may misinterpret the statement to imply otherwise.
Then he said, "Are you with me!"
And a giant lawyer/shark jumped up and ate him!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
registration doesn't matter... it only counts when calculating damages.
the earliest reference in archive.org for the site with that logo was jan 23, 2002. also found this post who says it was created in 2001:
http://lists.openhardware.org/pipermail/legal/2011-September/000004.html
Interestingly, opensource.org did not use the logo until June 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020725154922/http://opensource.org/
In fact, that page has an announcement in the sidebar:
*June 2002, Open Source & OSI-Certified marks launched! HTML & Print (color) instructions. Read about our Certification Program.
I would be interested in hearing what OSIs response is.
Seriously. Absolutely Seriously?
End of the credibility of the OSI?
that is the shape of the "magic eye tube" circle, first unveiled in the 1930s by RCA. sorry, guys, but Void That Copyright!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Similar enough for people to associate the two forms with some underlying concept? Yes. But that's the point.
Have gnu, will travel.
Shouldn't the OSI and the OSHWA be working together anyways? They have similar goals and challenges. Petty bickering between the two organizations is silly and counter-productive to their goals. They should create a central governing body to cover both, call it the OSA (Open Source Alliance) and dedicate it to all things Open Source. This would grant both groups a LOT more power to direct industry, champion patent and copyright reform, and even take down some patent trolls.
I do Free Software instead. Free Hardware sounds even better than Open Source Hardware.
Based on name alone, which do you think most folk would want to find out more about?
Bonus, it gives RMS yet another soap box from which to preach the virtue of "Free vs Free".
They are not bickering over the logo. They are in talks. What is it with slashdot story posts anymore? It's to the point where I have to read the article to get the full story anymore.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock